Talk:Woody Allen bibliography

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles

Lists Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Bibliographies Low‑importance

	Books portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bibliographies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Bibliographies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BibliographiesWikipedia:WikiProject BibliographiesTemplate:WikiProject BibliographiesBibliographies articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Requested move 31 July 2015

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Not moved. There is a consensus against the proposed move. bd2412 T 03:51, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

– Per WP:NCBOOKS#Bibliographies, Articles that serve to list the literary works written by an individual writer should have a title that starts with the writer's name and ends with the word "bibliography", but Articles that serve to list the literary works written by different writers about a particular subject should have a title that starts with "Bibliography of" and ends with the name of the subject. Therefore, Woody Allen bibliography is for books by Woody Allen, and Bibliography of Woody Allen is for books about Woody Allen. -- Rob Sinden (talk) 11:58, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note. Perhaps Woody Allen wasn't the best example to use (I used it as it was first in the list) as this article is about both works by him and works about him, but that is not the case for the majority of the other articles. --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:04, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- This is also the case with the Orson Welles bibliography, which includes some 20 titles written by Welles, many books written about him, and many many books written about his work. I'm not convinced that splitting the article into two bibliographies has much value, but if that is the consensus I agree with the remarks that В²C makes in opposition. FWIW, I've worked on two other bibliographies not in this group — Rex Stout bibliography and Erle Stanley Gardner bibliography — that would need to be split, as well. — WFinch (talk) 02:30, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'd happily remove the "mixed" articles from the nominiation. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:06, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support as per the many articles beginning "Bibliography of ..." and per English grammar. You can sensibly write "The Woody Allen bibliography" or "Woody Allen's bibliography but I think that "Bibliography of Woody Allen" is also sufficiently cohesive. Greg Kaye 18:00, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Bibliography of is ambiguous. If you're going to change all these, pick something more precise, like Bibliography on Woody Allen. Or: Books by Woody Allen and Books about Woody Allen. --В²C ☎ 18:21, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Born2cylce – if these are to be moved, "Bibliography on Woody Allen" (etc.) is a more correct and precise title. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:13, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't what is recommended in the guideline though. --Rob Sinden (talk) 07:58, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - There are celebrity name filmography (Julia Roberts filmography) and singer name discography (Lady Gaga discography). Renaming these bibliographies would break consistencies with other -ography pages. I think WP:VPP would be a better venue than this. --George Ho (talk) 19:45, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They're not comparable though, I don't think you read the guideline. It wouldn't break consistency at all. Books by someone would be "Name bibliography", this is to differentiate for books about someone as prescribed in the guideline. Look at all the other articles starting "Bibliography of..." when the bibliography is about the subject --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:06, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – the more I think about it, the more agree with B2C and George Ho: it sounds like, instead, WP:NCBOOKS#Bibliographies should be revised to account for celebrity name bibliography cases. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:53, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per the above discussions; guidelines should be revised to reflect this change. Zumoarirodoka (talk) 19:57, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, per my previous comment. I particularly don't care to see Orson Welles bibliography in a mass move. One all-inclusive bibliography of works by and about the subject seems most useful to me, if the sections are appropriately titled. The present guidelines would require that the bibliography be split; I, too, would like them revised to offer some flexibility. — WFinch (talk) 18:59, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support improvement to grammar and clarity.

The current titles are ambiguous, but the proposal is still ambiguous. Agree with criticism of the "of". Is is "about" or "by" or both or "associated with" or "used by"?

Generally, I observe that the titles are quite poor, and the lede sentence quite good. Satyajit Ray bibliography, for example, would be much better and well-titled by List of books and essays about Satyajit Ray. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:35, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, this particular suggestion. However, I agree that the current guideline is somewhat confusing and ambiguous. While I think the Bibliographies on a person is a good start, I feel that SmokeyJoe's suggestion might lead to the least confusion. When books are about a person (e.g. Welles), than per the list guidelines, they should be named something like "List of books about Orson Welles". And the information in those lists shouldn't be co-mingled, as they are very different things. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:04, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per B2C and George Ho. Fortdj33 (talk) 13:16, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. A good example is how Madonna bibliography contains works Madonna herself wrote while Bibliography of Madonna lists works written about her. Snuggums (talk / edits) 14:28, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Bibliographies should be named IAW the long standing naming convention in Wikipedia:WikiProject Bibliographies and unless there is a page size issue, splitting bibliographies into "works on" and "works about" isn't necessary. --Mike Cline (talk) 15:53, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, Wikipedia:WikiProject Bibliographies recommends Topical bibliographies where the topic is a person should be named: Bibliography of works on John Doe. This eliminates confusion with John Doe bibliography which lists works by John Doe (an author bibliography). --Rob Sinden (talk) 07:59, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, and both of your points highlight why the guideline should be changed, not dozens of articles moved. Guidelines are supposed to reflect common Wiki practices – they aren't a straight-jacket designed to force us in to less-than-rational practices and outcomes. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:53, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - And why should the guidelines be changed? This isn't common Wiki practice... All of these articles were created at the incorrect name around the same time by the same author who didn't follow the guidelines. As the quote above points out, we need to differentiate between works about and works by. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:01, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - Actually, the Orson Welles bibliography that's part of this move proposal was created in January 2013. Other one-article bibliographies include Bob Dylan bibliography (created in July 2014) and Noam Chomsky bibliography, which began in March 2009 as "Bibliography of Noam Chomsky" but was moved to "Noam Chomsky bibliography" in December 2009 with an edit summary that reads, "Standardize". I've created two all-inclusive bibliographies myself, so I can attest to it being common practice. Now that I know the guidelines exist, I'd hope for more flexibility when a one-article bibliography is clearly organized, rather than be required to create a second bibliography for Welles. A hatnote like that on the Bibliography of Madonna article—"Not to be confused with Madonna bibliography"—would be a head scratcher to most readers. — WFinch (talk) 11:45, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        All these examples include both works by and about the subject, which there is no provision for in the guideline. I'm not suggesting we split these, and have already said that the Allen and Welles ones could be struck from the nomination for this reason. It's the sixty-odd others which are the main concern... --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:19, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        Thank you, I hadn't seen your response. — WFinch (talk) 12:55, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support this clear grammatical improvement. Glen Spearleat (talk) 18:23, 8 August 2015 (UTC).[reply]
- Important comment: it should be "of" if it is a list of writings of that person but "on" if it is a list of books about the person. Glen Spearleat (talk) 18:26, 8 August 2015 (UTC).[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.